Since we use these words here now and then, I've been thinking...

And although I have thoughts of my own about this...

I am really interested in what everyone here may think about the difference between...

TRUTH or FACT

Thank you.

Hi, when I was younger I heard a definition of OPINION vs. FACT. I know that's not what your asking but it seems close to me.

The difference is that FACT can be proven true or false. OPINION cannot be proven either way.

I think in your question TRUTH would have to come with proof of it being true.

A fact is something that can be proven with hard evidence, i.e. documentation, physical evidence, etc.

A truth is something that can be proven by a combination of fact and logic.

An Opinion is something that cannot be proven specifically. A Valid opinion is one that has at least some basis in fact or logic. If there is no basis for the opinion that its not valid.

At least those are the definitions I go by.

The facts are 100% undeniable but truth is how we interpret those facts.. everyone's truth about the facts can vary.. IMO

Just because its true to you doesn't make it a fact
Just because it's a fact doesn't make it true

About what Tommyp!072 said... I don't understand how something could be fact and not true. Anyone?

Truth is in the eye of the beholder
One mans truth is another mans lies
Its just how WE interpret

Fact may be seen as true through empirical observation. There is no empirical formula to gauge truth. It is either true or it is not.

About what Tommyp!072 said...I don't understand how something could be fact and not true. Anyone?

Though not a perfect fit to what you are asking...

A paradox is something where conflicting facts are nullified by a larger perhaps invisible truth.

Example:

"I must give it away to keep it"... is often used in recovery circles.
On face value I must have "it" in order to give it away.
But if I give it away, then I can't be keeping it too.
So how does one keep it, if they are giving it away?

So does that help any, Aqua?

And thanks for all the comments, everyone - those who haven't posted, feel free to also!

A great truth is that when we give, we keep the universal supply line open, thereby receiving at the same time. The fact of the matter is, when one gives nothing back, the supply line is shut off and that persons supply stops. Truth, the law of the universe, fact, what we observe from the way we perceive that truth and react upon it.

A fact is something that can be proven with hard evidence, i.e. documentation, physical evidence, etc.

A truth is something that can be proven by a combination of fact and logic.

An Opinion is something that cannot be proven specifically. A Valid opinion is one that has at least some basis in fact or logic. If there is no basis for the opinion that its not valid.

At least those are the definitions I go by.

Good points Scott.
I like the fact definition.
I like the truth definition, except it make me then wonder how one defines "logic" or where it fits in with fact or truth as a definition.

And, although I deliberately didn't ask about opinions (I only asked for them lol), I disagree since opinions are always valid to the author (ask any one of them lol!) and are not really "valid" to others as much as they are agreed (or disagreed) with, which doesn't go to validity in my book.

Opinions may up their ante to be agreed with if the author can back their opinion with factual or truthful information but it is still agreement that the opinion gains. The more agreement the opinion gains, the more "valid" it may look to others but it still is only an impression of validity, a kind of approval some peope are willing to go with and not research themselves. This is the mechanism by which urban legends and such can acquire a foothold, I believe.

It seems strange or even illogical to me that you claim an opinion can't be "proven specifically" and then go on to define how it can be valid or not valid (which suggests it CAN be proven specifically) :confused:
Definition of valid - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/validity)

That's why I made a specific delineation. Lets say someone posts an opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. Is such an opinion valid since it flies in the face of established fact? On the flip side lets say someone says there is a God. There are logical arguments that can be made to back up that opinion. Not everyone will accept those logical arguments, but they do exist.

My point is that anyone can state an opinion. But my feeling is that if you do so, you need to be able to support that opinion, If you can't then you should recant it.

On the flip side lets say someone says there is a God. There are logical arguments that can be made to back up that opinion. Not everyone will accept those logical arguments, but they do exist.

So let me get this right...

You are saying that while the God opinion is backed by logical argument that isn't universally accepted but should be, it is still not specifically proved?

Nice loop of nonlogic you got there there. :eek:

Undoubtedly the next thing to take place is some off the path definition of logic that suits the argument rather than be accurate.

Very good question Valinors! I tried to put it in your last answer but was not allowed.

So let me get this right...

you are saying that while the God opinion is backed by logical argument that isn't universally accepted but should be, it is still not specifically proved?

Nice loop of nonlogic you got there there. :eek:

Undoubtedly the next thing to take place is some off the path definition of logic that suits the argument rather than be accurate.

No, I'm not saying the arguments "Should" be accepted. I'm saying that an argument can be made that some people will accept. Unless an argument can be conclusively disproven with hard fact or where no facts exist to to support the argument, then a person is entitled to that opinion.

Look at the argument that the figure to Jesus's right in the Last Supper is Mary Magdelene. It does look female. However, there is other evidence that DaVinci painted John as an androgynous figure in other paintings. It appears that evidence exists that can support either opinion. In my opinion that figure is female. But I can concede that other people can have a different opinion. There are entitled to their belief. But the person who believes the moon is made of green cheese is NOT entititled to that belief.

An Opinion is something that cannot be proven specifically. A Valid opinion is one that has at least some basis in fact or logic.

Be patient with me, I still don't understand...

How does a "valid opinion" differ from an "opinion that is proved specifically"?

A direct explanation rather than citing examples would work best, I think. (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)

And do me a favour please and leave all the God and Davinci code stuff out of it; that really doesn't help with clarity since they tend to be controversial elements in their own right?

Here is the Webster definition of proof just for giggles:
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Isn't an opinion just something someone believes to be true or false. If it has be proven one way or the other then isn't it considered to be fact. A "valid opinion" has nothing to do with it, does it? As with religion, for most people, religious beliefs are just that. Something one believes to be true. Everyone believes different things for different reasons. They may believe because of some sort of "proof" they have accepted to be true.

OK, hold on just one minute there! Are you trying to tell me that the moon IS NOT MADE OF GREEN CHEESE? The last guy I talked to that just got back from the moon told me in no uncertain terms that that moon is made of green cheese and here you go scott trying to tell me that it isn't! What I want to know is have you been to the moon or is it just your opinion that it is not made of green cheese? If you have been to the moon then now I have two opinions to sort through and try to come up with the most valid opinion. If you have not been to the moon then what I want to know is just exactly what are you basing the facts that led to your opinion which states quite catagorically that no, the moon is not made of green cheese. Heck, he even gave me a chunk of the green moon cheese that he brought back from the moon but it had gone bad because these little bugs that accidentally got aboard his spaceship had gotten into it, they were lunar tics, I think he called them! No, I really think the moon is made of green cheese but then, that is just my opinion because that's what my friend told me and he ought to know since he was on the moon... a while back.
"One small slice of cheese for man, one giant chunk of cheese for mankind."

Just the facts mam, just the facts.

Lol MAGPROB (I fear I will accidentally call you magpie one day so I apologise in advance if I ever do!)

Scott: I did some research and now wonder if you have confused the term "valid" with "sound" - could this be what you were thinking of?

Soundness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness)

I'm not sure I can explain this any better than I have. Let me try to put it this way. An opinion that can be completely disproven by fact is an invalid opinion. Anything else might be considered a valid opinion.

What I'm trying to do is differentiate between someone who makes an outrageous statement that is untrue and trying to justify it because "everyone is entitled to an opinion".

I see what you are saying Scott. I think you have a point in your last post. Good opinion.

(Sorry, I tried to comment but I couldn't)

The difference in truth and fact in this instance is I think this is a funny question and that is the truth because that is what I believe... but then the question is not a funny question and that is a fact.

I am really interested in what everyone here may think about the difference between...

TRUTH or FACT

A "fact" is something that cannot be disputed. Tis something that can be/has been proven.

"Truth" is often relative and disputable - unless it is referring to a fact.


how does a "valid opinion" differ from an "opinion that is proved specifically"?

I consider all opinions valid unless they are based on presuming something a fact when it is not; like "I think Don Juan was a brave man for sailing the ocean to discover America"

"Proof" is not a word that can be used about an opinion; that is, I don't see that an opinion can be "proved"... except that I can point to someone's opinion to prove that it is that person's opinion.

... the above is my opinion :D

Well I would be inclined to say that Truth & Fact are not all that different - it all depends on the context to which they used.

You could for example have someone jealous of you for something so they start a rumour about you. Your friends believe that person and confront you - your reply - "get your facts straight before you starting accusing me of such things"

The facts in this scenario would be working out the truth.

However a policeman could have a case on his hands to solve.

The witnesses would give an account on what they saw and declare it the truth and sign a declaration to say they will stand up in court and say the very same in need be.

However the facts obtained may not correspond with the truth given by the witnesses.

Its all about context!

I consider all opinions valid unless they are based on presuming something a fact when it is not; like "I think Don Juan was a brave man for sailing the ocean to discover America"

"Proof" is not a word that can be used about an opinion; that is, I don't see that an opinion can be "proved"...except that I can point to someone's opinion to prove that it is that person's opinion.

...the above is my opinion :D

I agree that an opinion cannot be proven, but an opinion CAN be disproved. One can make an argument to support an opinion. However, if that argument is based on data that can be shown to be non-factual, then it negates the opinion as invalid.

I agree that an opinion cannot be proven, but an opinion CAN be disproved. One can make an argument to support an opinion. However, if that argument is based on data that can be shown to be non-factual, then it negates the opinion as invalid.



Double negative does what now? :eek:

It would be safe to assume that before you give your opinion, base it upon an empirical formula. Otherwise, there would be one grain of falsehood within your past experience, learning and thought processes which would in fact negate your opinion. So, if everything we have been taught in school, observed in the world and accepted to be true, are then drawn upon to form the basis of an opinion, then I say every opinion could have that small grain of falsehood in it's foundation. After all, do we think for a second that there is no falsehood within our belief system, our education and even our own thought process?

Hi,
Interesting thoughts.
I agree with rickj's answer.
Fact is real and proven. An uproven "fact" is called a Theorem, which is yet to be proven to be Fact.
Truth may be "as one sees it", which does not always make it a Fact.
These two words are sometimes used interchangeably; such as "The Truth is....", or the person might have said "The fact is ......".
In this case, one doesn't really know if the statement is Truth or Fact.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

"Yet it is in our idleness, in our dreams, that the submerged truth sometimes comes to the top."

"Truths emerge from facts, but they dip forward into facts again and add to them; which facts again create or reveal new truth (the word is indifferent) and so on indefinitely. The 'facts' themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are. Truth is the function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them."

EDIT: I got these... and most of the quotes I use here:

Truth Quotes | Truth Quotations | Truth Sayings | Wisdom Quotes (http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_truth.html) ;)

We have objective truth which is true regardless of opinion and we have subjective truth which can vary according to culture, or religion. Subjective truth might or might not be in harmony with ultimate reality of facts which exists regardless of opinion. Objective truth is always in harmony with ultimate reality. For example, as DrJizzle pointed out before, people once believed the earth to be the center of the universe. That was subjective truth since regardless of their opinion the universe wasn't in harmony with it. The objective truth was that the earth is not the center of the universe. Another example is based on perception of what we consider an external world. Not all creatures perceive it in the same way. For example, not all creatures see the colors we see. So this too is subjective truth. The objective truth is that all there seems to be radiation which stimulates neurotransmitter transfer from nerve cells which ultimately is interpreted in the human occipital lobe as a certain color. The same applies to all the other senses. But even here we can't say with 100% certainty since we seem to be dependent on sense impressions whoes ultimate source we have too assume proceeds from the perceived. Ultimately all perception has to be opinion while ultimate truth or objective truth remains somewhere in some form unchanged.

BTW
The above might not harmonize point for point with the way the subject officially explained in college. I do remember the Prof speaking as fact being that which can be proven via evidence as another poster pointed out.

Very nice distinctions Starman...

I like to think of it as truth and Truth.

truth = yours and mine and every other human with a "can't help but be somewhat subjective" viewpoint on the planet.

Truth = objective, scientific, spiritual, immutable, eternal and well basically God's Truth.

It has been part of my personal journey to (besides trading in my fear-based decisions for love-based ones) continually adjust my truth so its closer and closer all the time to Truth. Very interesting journey too, I will confess! Thanks for the thought-provoking post!

We have objective truth which is true regardless of opinion and we have subjective truth which can vary according to culture, or religion. Subjective truth might or might not be in harmony with ultimate reality of facts which exists regardless of opinion. Objective truth is always in harmony with ultimate reality. For example, as DrJizzle pointed out before, people once believed the earth to be the center of the universe. That was subjective truth since regardless of their opinion the universe wasn't in harmony with it. The objective truth was that the earth is not the center of the universe. Another example is based on perception of what we consider an external world. Not all creatures perceive it in the same way. For example, not all creatures see the colors we see. So this too is subjective truth. The objective truth is that all there seems to be radiation which stimulates neurotransmitter transfer from nerve cells which ultimately is interpreted in the human occipital lobe as a certain color. The same applies to all the other senses. But even here we can't say with 100% certainty since we seem to be dependent on sense impressions whoes ultimate source we have too assume proceeds from the perceived. Ultimately all perception has to be opinion while ultimate truth or objective truth remains somewhere in some form unchanged.

BTW
The above might not harmonize point for point with the way the subject officially explained in college. I do remember the Prof speaking as fact being that which can be proven via evidence as another poster pointed out.

So is it safe to say that we do not know Truth (objective truth)?

After all, what we think to be "proven" is only proven with our limited resources and senses.

It sort of reminds me of that short story from Ray Bradbury... I don't really remember it but it was about a race that actually had a decernment for Truth.

So is it safe to say that we do not know Truth (objective truth)?

After all, what we think to be "proven" is only proven with our limited resources and senses.

It sort of reminds me of that short story from Ray Bradbury... I dont really remember it but it was about a race that actually had a decernment for Truth.

True, we are bound by our limited senses and for practical reasons we choose to accept this input as reliable and true since we have no other choice.

According to Hume, in our human condition we can't experience objective truth in relation to what we perceive as an exterior world. Here is an example: Suppose we gather many hypothetical species from many hypothetical planets and these creatures are all hardwired differently from one another in terms of perception. Suppose we subject all these thousands of species to an identical stimuli, let's say a visual one which humand perceive as a rectangular prism. Since each species is hardwired differently each one perceives what we perceive as a rectangular prism differently. One sees the stimuli as a cylinder, another as a globe, another as a gaseous amorphous gas, another as a light, another sees nothing at all, and so on. Who is to say which one of these perceptions, if they really are perceptions, is the correct one? Perhaps the stimulus isn't similar to any of them. But we need not go to extraterrestrial extremes since right here on earth the different animal special all perceive the supposedly same world differently.

About the story, the that I read was one depicting Martians who lacked eyes but which perceived the universe in ways which surpassed all human ability. For example, what was invisible and not hearable to us was a panorama of many colors and sounds to them. So the human who had requested seeing what they saw considered himself blind after the experience and did away with himself. A rather strange ending!

BTW

I am only partially in agreement with Descartes on this subject.

But we need not go to extraterrestrial extremes since right here on earth the different animal special all perceive the supposedly same world differently.

I am more than comfortable being stuck in the subjective or small t truth, since getting my truth close to The Truth is close enough! :p

That's really interesting... Its what me and a couple of my childhood friends discovered and called the Universal Green theory...

See, when I was growing up, I wasn't into Tonka trucks dand chasing lizards... me and my two best friends (one, a real down to Earth kind of guy... both feet on the ground... the other, a real visionary... head in the clouds kind of guy... through our experiences, I ended up with influences from the best of both worlds, in my opinion) anyway, we would sit around, starring at the sky, sitting in the hot tub, philosiphizing about Life, God, and the Universe. It was an awesome childhood, as far as I am concerned... mind you, this is between the ages of 10-18 or so.

We were maybe 6th or 7th grade at the time. We came up with a very similar theory, but we simply used colors to describe it. If I look at the color green, I would say "that is green." However, you may look at the same color, see what I would call red, but since you were taught that it was called green, you too would say "that is green" even though we were seeing two different colors altogether. We called in the Universal Green theory. It's a bit more elementary but quite the same, nonetheless.

Thats really interesting.... Its what me and a couple of my childhood friends discovered and called the Universal Green theory...

See, when i was growing up, I wasnt into Tonka trucks dand chasing lizards... me and my two best friends (one, a real down to Earth kind of guy... both feet on the ground... the other, a real visionary... head in the clouds kind of guy... thru our experiences, I ended up with influences from the best of both worlds, in my opinion) anyway, we would sit around, starring at the sky, sitting in the hot tub, philosiphizing about Life, God, and the Universe. It was an awesome childhood, as far as I am concerned... mind you, this is between the ages of 10-18 or so.

We were maybe 6th or 7th grade at the time. We came up with a very similar theory, but we simply used colors to describe it. If I look at the color green, I would say "that is green." However, you may look at the same color, see what I would call red, but since you were taught that it was called green, you too would say "that is green" even though we were seeing two different colors altogether. We called in the Universal Green theory. Its a bit more elementary but quite the same, nonetheless.


Did I know you then Jizz? LOL

Yep Yep Yep, we went as far as saying okay, if we switched eyeballs - would that do it?. noooo!

If we switched brains - would that do it?. hmmmmm?

If I jumped in your whole body?. maybe?

If I lived your whole life in your body.. . well hells spells, we're back to square one NOW! @#$#$!#$ :eek:

Did I know you then Jizz? LOL

Yep Yep Yep, we went as far as saying okay, if we switched eyeballs - would that do it?.... noooo!

If we switched brains - would that do it?..... hmmmmm?

If i jumped in your whole body? ..... maybe?

If I lived your whole life in your body . . .well hells spells, we're back to square one NOW!!@#$#$!#$ :eek:

In my case I don't need to change eyeballs with anyone since I have a condition which causes one eye to see things in different shades than the other eye. I don't notice it unless I shut one eye and then compare with what I see next with the other. Long ago I was told by the doctor what the condition's medical name is but since it's nothing serious I didn't commit it to memory. One of my eyes also takes much longer to accustom itself to the darkness. I can see the room clearly with one eye while the other can't see a thing.

I also have a condition which is called lazy eye which causes one eye to swerve sideways and makes one see things double. In short, there are two images registering and I suppose that one of them is the real one. In fact, I have sometimes reached to grab the wrong one such as a glass or the object. But that's very rare since my brain has learned to ignore the one which isn't in harmony with my body movements so there is no problem there. I also shut one eye most of the time to prevent the inconvenience.

So I guess I'm a walking talking example of what subjective perception is all about. LOL

Since we use these words here now and then, I've been thinking...

And although I have thoughts of my own about this....

I am really interested in what everyone here may think about the difference between...

TRUTH or FACT

Thank you.
A truth is something that is spiritual and perhaps ultimately subjective to the individual.
A fact us something that is believed to be true according to the current world-view.

A truth is something that is spiritual and perhaps ultimately subjective to the individual.
A fact us something that is believed to be true according to the current world-view.

Hmm, I am a little late on this subject but I just joined a little while ago so I guess its OK :). According to keenu's comment, which I am in agreement with, what I have deduced is that truth AND fact aren't necessarily the real answers. Truth, as it has been stated, is individualized and does not have to be right but only right to the individual. A fact us something that is believed to be true according to the current world-view as it says in the above quote. But the individual's truth and the world's fact doesn't mean it is the real answer but only what that individual or world's belief is. So therefore, neither fact nor truth can be labeled as the real truth but only the opinion of a collective or an individual.

So therefore, neither fact nor truth can be labeled as the real truth but only the opinion of a collective or an individual.

That is not always true ;)

There are certain in controvertible facts. If you let go of something it falls. A diamond will cut glass. Water comprises 2 parts of Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen. If you disparage someone's religion you will get attacked :) (j/k)

Didn't think it through all the way yesterday :P But wouldn't those be labeled as a type of law as well such as: gravity, a diamond being harder then glass, etc... because those are unchangeable facts I think they should fall in a different category; but then again they are indeed facts. I agree about the last line too xD but if they were truly walking the path of their religion and believe in it, I don't think they would attack you but that's 1/100000 people purhaps >.<.

In my humble opinion, "facts" are pieces of information proved to be real, and "truth" is what you get when you properly put together the "facts".